|
it is interesting to read through this thread because the problem that runs through it is how to limit the effects of historicizing a belief system--a move that would easily lead to relativism--which poses a real problem for people who believe because, as kierkegaard worried about and theorized long ago, historicizing a belief system wipes out the space of belief.
if you historicize the christian tradition you can see it as little more than a series of attempts to define the limits on interpretation. the move behind it is almost always heresy, as weber defined it, and as bourdieu later formalized it....move to the origin texts to at once legitimate your position and to undercut the legitimacy of the opposition--now you are the most faithful representative of the oringal impetus behind the founding texts, for whatever reason....an argument that you could not make if you viewed heresy as a possibility that fits into a history of such possibilities.
the process that follows is the one weber thought much about--the transition from charismatic prophet (the heretic) to institutionalized formation via the routinization of charisma. but it is hard to imagine how you would maintain belief if you came to understand your belief as being shaped by this kind of process--unless it only obtains or others, other denominations, etc.
the setting of limits on interpretation in the present is a way of defending the naturalization of power relations that follows from the fact of belief. which is a way of defending the space of belief itself.
not sure if this is too much in shorthand--i have no time at the moment---i just found it interesting.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|